Evidence Hub

The Use of Noncontrast Quantitative MRI to Detect Gadolinium-Enhancing Multiple Sclerosis Brain Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Gupta A, Al-Dasuqi K, Xia F, Askin G, Zhao Y, Delgado D, Wang Y

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2017

985 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

Background: Concerns have arisen about the long-term health effects of repeat gadolinium injections in patients with multiple sclerosis and the incomplete characterization of MS lesion pathophysiology that results from relying on enhancement characteristics alone.

Purpose: Our aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis analyzing whether noncontrast MR imaging biomarkers can distinguish enhancing and nonenhancing brain MS lesions.

Data sources: Our sources were Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane data base from inception to August 2016.

Study selection: We included 37 journal articles on 985 patients with MS who had MR imaging in which T1-weighted postcontrast sequences were compared with noncontrast sequences obtained during the same MR imaging examination by using ROI analysis of individual MS lesions.

Data analysis: We performed random-effects meta-analyses comparing the standard mean difference of each MR imaging metric taken from enhancing-versus-nonenhancing lesions.

Data synthesis: DTI-based fractional anisotropy values are significantly different between enhancing and nonenhancing lesions (P = .02), with enhancing lesions showing decreased fractional anisotropy compared with nonenhancing lesions. Of the other most frequently studied MR imaging biomarkers (mean diffusivity, magnetization transfer ratio, or ADC), none were significantly different (P values of 0.30, 0.47, and 0.19. respectively) between enhancing and nonenhancing lesions. Of the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 985 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free